Comment: the way i understand it

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: You may very well be right (see in situ)

the way i understand it

i'm a voluntarist so i'll be explaining how things work not how they should.

"Roe v Wade took away States Rights"
kinda. they said a women had a constitutional right to choice and the states could not violate her right up until the point of viability. after viability the states could ban it like late term abortions etc.

"Rand says his bill would overturn Roe v Wade."
i haven't read rands bill but from what he said it would change the wording of the law that gives people constitutional rights and apply that to the unborn fetus or embryo at conception. defining the embryo as a human life, along with overturning roe vs wade would take the rights away from the mother and the state and give it to the zygote and the federal government. it seems like this would be real bad from a scientific stand point as well. maybe he has some exceptions for fertility clinics and science in general as well as life of the mother, rape, etc. it's a slippery slope he should not have gone down.

this is just rand pandering to the religious right and getting cover for his recent stance on token marijuana reform and immigration reform etc. he knows this legislation won't go anywhere but can be used as a wedge issue against his republican detractors and opponents who live in more liberal states. rand knows he's safe in Kentucky. technically it's a dead issue now but one that will come back to hurt him on the west coast and all the other states he claimed he wanted republicans to be competitive in. he should have stuck to rons libertarian compromise position of letting the states decide.

Official Daily Paul BTC address: 16oZXSGAcDrSbZeBnSu84w5UWwbLtZsBms
Rand Paul 2016